Atrocities in the past must be recognised, documented and learned from - but not distorted or
misused for political purposes

[22/03/10] Gross
human rights violations in the past continue to affect relations in
today’s Europe. In some cases the right lessons have been learned;
genuine knowledge of history has facilitated understanding, tolerance
and trust between individuals and peoples. However, some serious
atrocities are denied or trivialised, which has created new tensions.
There are also cases where violations in the past have been exploited in
chauvinistic propaganda, causing division and hatred. Bogus
interpretations of history have in fact been used to justify
discrimination, racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.

There is an understandable urge among all peoples to
seek pride in their own history. Or to focus on previous misdeeds by
other peoples. This tendency is often more dominant in situations of
crisis or when national identity is uncertain or questioned. Experience
shows that strong nationalistic feelings tend to limit the space for an
honest analysis of what one’s forefathers or their neighbours may have
done in the past.

Coming to terms with history is always essential, but
particularly crucial in cases of massive atrocities and human rights
violations. Such crimes cannot be ignored without severe consequences.
Prolonged impunity or lack of acknowledgment over several generations
tends to create bitterness among those who identify themselves with the
victims, which in turn can poison relations between people who were not
even born when the events in question took place.

The former colonial powers in Europe have been
reluctant - even long afterwards - to recognise the full extent of the
damage caused by the ruthless exploitation of human beings and natural
resources in Asia, Africa and Latin America. They strongly opposed an
original proposal at the World Conference against Racism in Durban 2001
that the outcome document should refer to these historic facts - which
resulted in a bleak compromise formulation. This was rightly criticised.

The Nazi crimes and in particular the Holocaust were
denied, trivialised or ignored by many when the killings were going on.
Afterwards, every sane person has had to recognise this monumental crime
against humanity – which also made the world community adopt the concept
of genocide and an international convention for the prevention
and punishment of such crimes in the future.

It has to be recognised that post-war Germany has
made enormous efforts to expose the Nazi crimes, to compensate surviving
victims, to punish perpetrators when possible and to educate future
generations about the horrors committed in the name of their
forefathers. All this has been absolutely necessary, nothing less would
have been acceptable.

Authorities in some other countries have been less
open about co-operation with the Nazis in the executions of Jews which
were committed on their soil. The mass killings of Roma have not been
given sufficient attention, and compensation to survivors has been late
and minimal. The murders of homosexuals and the medical experiments on
and killings of persons with disabilities have also tended to be pushed
aside.

Crimes in the Soviet Union were exposed, not least by
the powerful writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The glasnost
during Mikhail Gorbachev opened the doors for further revelations;
Andrei Sakharov and the organisation “Memorial” contributed massively to
revealing the truth. Still, the full scale of the Stalinist repression
seems not to be recognised by everyone in Russia. The initiated review
of history education in schools should address this problem.

The recent discussion in some European countries
about the role of the Soviet army during World War II was not
appreciated in the Russian Federation. There was a feeling that the
sacrifices during what the Russians call “the Great Patriotic War” were
disregarded and – even worse - that their contribution to fight against
Nazism was compared with the brutalities of Hitler's army. The exchanges
illustrated the need to make the necessary distinctions when history is
discussed – in this case between Stalin’s dictatorial policy and the
efforts by soldiers and civilians from the same country to defend their
nation and combat Nazism.

Even more controversial has been - and is - the very
description of the enforced mass displacement, the ensuing deaths as
well as the outright killings of ethnic Armenians in 1915 under the
Ottoman Empire. Even though this happened before the creation of the new
Turkish republic, there has been unwillingness there to discuss these
crimes. Writers and journalists who raised the issue were brought to
trial. Now, the first steps towards recognising the facts have at long
last been taken - through academic discussions - but more needs to be
done.

One group of people whose history has been grossly
neglected in Europe is the Roma. Not only have the Nazi crimes against
them been largely ignored, the accounts of the brutal repression or
systematic discrimination of them before and after this period in
several European countries have not been recognised. Official apologies
have been slow to come, if at all.

In the Balkans, the different versions of historic
events – some of them going back several hundred years - became a
distinct factor in the conflicts during the 1990s and severely
undermined international peace efforts. During the war new atrocities
were committed, the scope and even the existence of which became
disputed. Human rights organisations all over the former Yugoslavia are
asking for a regional truth commission – which would be an important
initiative to avoid distortions of history becoming the cause of new
tensions in the future.

Not only in the Balkans but also in other previous
conflict zones, there could be more than one single historical narrative
to be discovered. They can all be truthful - though seen from different
perspectives and with emphasis on different aspects. It could be of
paramount importance that different groupings in the community become
aware of such diversity of historical accounts – and accept that there
are differences even when the basic facts are established.

One example of a constructive project to create
understanding of this kind was initiated in Northern Ireland. A dialogue
was organised with the purpose of encouraging the different sides to
recognise the legitimate version of the others. Judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights in relation to unsatisfactory
investigations into sectarian killings in Northern Ireland played a part
in this historical reconstruction.

After the fall of the junta in Greece in 1974 trials
were held to establish accountability. Similar efforts in
post-dictatorship Spain and Portugal focused a lot on the activities of
the secret services. In the former Communist countries in Eastern Europe
the so-called lustration process was used as an instrument to address
the past.

Establishing true accounts of previous human rights
violations is indeed essential for building the rule of law in all
post-conflict situations. In the immediate aftermath this is crucial to
the efforts to bring those responsible to justice, to compensate the
victims and to take actions to prevent the recurrence of these crimes.

To establish the truth is also important in a
longer-term perspective. Those killed were human beings, not numbers.
Individual survivors as well as the children and grandchildren of the
victims have the right to know and to grieve in dignity. The possibility
to remember and commemorate must be protected.

Society as a whole must learn from what happened and
therefore continue to document the events, to establish museums and
memorial sites and to give the next generation a chance to understand
through proper education.

The Council of Europe has extensive experience in fostering multi-perspective history teaching through the provision of interactive
teaching materials and bilateral cooperation. It has developed teaching
kits for key events of the 20th Century and the European
dimension of history. Women’s history has been part of these endeavours. Currently new materials are being
prepared for the portrayal of “the other” in history teaching to ensure a diversity of perspectives.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Council of Europe coordinated the
preparation of Common Guidelines which led to the drafting of new
history and geography textbooks as well as teaching manuals. Teachers
have taken an active part in the process and demonstrated enthusiasm
about learning multi-perspectivity and new interactive teaching styles.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has also highlighted the
role of history teaching for reconciliation in post-conflict situations.
It has stressed the need to deal with controversial questions in history
teaching without resorting to a politically expedient approach of
representing one single interpretation of events. It noted
that there is now international acceptance that there may be many views
and interpretations - all based on evidence.

Historical controversies should not hold human rights
hostage. One-sided interpretations or distortions of historical events
should not be allowed to lead to discrimination of minorities,
xenophobia and renewal of conflict. New generations should not be blamed
for what some of their forefathers did.

What is important is an honest search for the truth and a sober, facts-based discussion about
the different versions. Only then can the right lessons be learned.

Viewpoints have been published fortnightly since
April 2006 in English, French and Russian. This is the last one of the
series and can be used without prior consent, provided that the text is
not modified and the original source is indicated in the following way:
“Also available at the Commissioner’s website at
www.commissioner.coe.int.”

The Commissioner will continue publishing articles on
human rights regularly via a new tool to be launched in April.